Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

ford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#891

Post by pmorici »

aaroninsf wrote: post #665

Hot take: this, as some like Ars Technica have observed, stands a decent chance of being a real game changer. Everything about this vehicle launch appears masterful, from its technology to its branding to the obvious care taken to ensure that in almost every respect it is so superior, and offers so many no-brainers, as to make anyone who can (both individuals and especially, fleet managers), buy these as fast they ca…

The features and specs feel mediocre compared to CyberTruck. The only thing that looked perhaps better was the frunk size and access but everything else CyberTruck is clearly better even price and most definitely on the most important spec of all, range.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#893

Post by jessriedel »

SECProto wrote: post #764
jessriedel wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedestrians make up only a small minority of people killed in car crashes. (Like 6k of 40k per year.) So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead to big reductions in deaths, but it's not reasonable to care a ton about seriousness restricting the form factor yet think cars are fine in general. Best would be indexing car/truck sales tax to the size of the negative safety externalities, which would be a qu…

Cars&trucks cause a large majority of the pedestrians killed in walking-around-the-city accidents, though. Lumping those deaths in with highway deaths makes the statistic meaningless.

No. That would only be potentially true if people were proposing a law to limit the form factor of trucks that are driven in cities (and even if so, it would not be obvious; you'd have to look at the numbers). Since that isn't feasible, and all the proposed laws are about limiting the form factor of all consumer trucks, the average statics are the relevant ones.

You can always find a subpopulation where some effect is large; that can't be good reason to make rules that constrain the entire population.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#894

Post by elihu »

Has Ford said how many of these they plan to make? It seems like a good step in the right direction, but can they actually source enough batteries to manufacture these in high volume? (They sell about a million F150s a year.)

I wish them luck, but I hope they're fully committed and this isn't just a "let's make a few thousand at a loss for compliance and PR" move. And I hope they have a battery supplier that's prepared to ramp up production fast if they need it.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#895

Post by jessriedel »

TchoBeer wrote: post #798
jessriedel wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedestrians make up only a small minority of people killed in car crashes. (Like 6k of 40k per year.) So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead to big reductions in deaths, but it's not reasonable to care a ton about seriousness restricting the form factor yet think cars are fine in general. Best would be indexing car/truck sales tax to the size of the negative safety externalities, which would be a qu…

>So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead to big reductions in deaths, but it's not reasonable to care a ton about seriousness restricting the form factor yet think cars are fine in general. unless the form factor has some very significant upside that I'm not seeing, preventing deaths should be prioritized over people's aesthetic preferences. >It's clear consumers in the US value the large truck forma…

> unless the form factor has some very significant upside that I'm not seeing, preventing deaths should be prioritized over people's aesthetic preferences.

Nope. "Deaths should always be prioritized over aesthetics" is a clearly bad rule because it is innumerate. You must always trade off how many deaths for the preferences of how many people. Otherwise all design of everything is dictated solely by safety.

> no, it's clear that consumers in the US don't value the lives of pedestrians, and therefore we cannot trust the free market to determine what types of things get made.

No, you need to read about externalities and Pigovian taxes. The entire point of the proposed tax is that it does not require the car buyer to care about pedestrians whatsoever.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#896

Post by earth_walker »

JeremyNT wrote: post #550
gilbetron wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I was most excited about, and agree it is a game changer. Hopefully we can get small e-pickups at some point - I have a 2004 Toyota Tacoma that I love, and it would be amazing with a frunk, but you can't really get small pickups that size anymore.

> I have a 2004 Toyota Tacoma that I love, and it would be amazing with a frunk, but you can't really get small pickups that size anymore You're not kidding! I was in the market for a small pickup and checked out the Tacoma and Frontier, which I previously understood to be "small" trucks. They're massive these days, just like the F-150! I guess it's perceived that there's no market for that size any more. A small ele…

What we need is an electric Subaru Brat.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#897

Post by jorvi »

jszymborski wrote: post #818
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single near-miss I've had while walking in Minneapolis has been due to the driver not paying attention. There wasn't a single time it was due to lack of visibility from inside the vehicle. My yelling at one driver who was staring at her phone while driving out of a parking ramp and across the sidewalk where she nearly hit me, probably woke her up enough to avoid driving into traffic and being hit by a bus! No,…

The gp was simply stating that being struck by a truck is more lethal than a car due to their flat, tall fronts. They weren't, by my reading, insinuating that trucks are more likely to hit people. That is indeed, in my opinion, a function of operator error all things equal.

Yup, this is also why the Cybertruck (probably) won't be road legal in Europe. Too many sharp edges that would seriously hurt a pedestrian on collision.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#898

Post by analog31 »

cpwright wrote: post #859
analog31 wrote: post #425

I'm happy to see this. It's the most popular vehicle, so it will reach a large audience. Also, at least in my imagination, work trucks are a perfect use because they are used locally and parked on the job site. So the range and need for a charging station might not be impediments. My pet peeve is that vehicles are getting bigger in general, and I don't need a big vehicle. An F150 won't fit in my garage. An amusing an…

You could also just get a spray in bedliner, they are pretty darn tough. Shoveling dirty into/out of them will not have any negative effect and you can then sweep or hose it out.

Quite true. I mentioned that. My friend wanted it to be pristine. It was more than 2 decades ago.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#899

Post by earth_walker »

rootusrootus wrote: post #739
kibwen wrote: post #150

Ironically, the frunk on electric trucks is a game-changer. Complementing the bed with an enclosed, waterproof, secure place to carry things (and no mucking around with insecure bed covers) is a killer feature. No more springing for a crew cab just to carry groceries in the rear seats. In terms of practical carrying capacity this dominates an SUV.

Oh yeah, I'm totally into that. It's perfect for a grocery run and you don't need to do anything to keep it from rolling around the bed of the truck or get rained on.

Taking a pickup for a grocery run is like using a jackhammer to push in a thumbtack.

Re: 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning

#900

Post by zip1234 »

jessriedel wrote: post #608
zip1234 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trucks are more dangerous to pedestrians because of the higher and flatter front--means people end up underneath rather than above if they are struck. I understand why they kept the look the same and why they used that space but in the future would prefer that they made changes to make it safer for everyone and not just the occupants. The high hoods make for poor visibility around the front.

Pedestrians make up only a small minority of people killed in car crashes. (Like 6k of 40k per year.) So sure, it's good to make easy adjustments if they lead to big reductions in deaths, but it's not reasonable to care a ton about seriousness restricting the form factor yet think cars are fine in general. Best would be indexing car/truck sales tax to the size of the negative safety externalities, which would be a qu…

Please price in externalities. Add in noise, total area it takes up, weight, and pollution.
Post reply on HN